convore.json/groups/mercurial/mq-vs-branch-and-rebase-for-modifications-which-you-wont-push/messages.json

[{"user_id": 6587, "stars": [], "topic_id": 35633, "date_created": 1305635754.4404249, "message": "For example in my dotfiles repo I store private info as well as per machine modifications in MQ. It occurred to me why not just keep it in a separate branch and just use rebase to simulate my use of MQ? Are there any advantages to changing to a branch and rebase scheme?", "group_id": 356, "id": 1082006}, {"user_id": 6415, "stars": [], "topic_id": 35633, "date_created": 1305637865.19122, "message": "If modifications are to remind local, MQ seems to be a good idea. But if you think of it more like different versions you want to have on all machines with possibility to switch between them, branches are easier to share.", "group_id": 356, "id": 1082566}, {"user_id": 6415, "stars": [], "topic_id": 35633, "date_created": 1305637877.267746, "message": "That depends on your usage really.", "group_id": 356, "id": 1082571}, {"user_id": 1771, "stars": [], "topic_id": 35633, "date_created": 1305640597.7052121, "message": "I use both policies.  For something like blohg (Mercurial based blogging) I have a few patches I push before running 'install' and then immediately pop -- things I want in place only when that command is run.  For the same repo I have local css/image/template changes which I do as a local anonymous-branch/head (no need to use a named branch) and I always merge upstream's head with my head before doing any work.", "group_id": 356, "id": 1083082}]